Audubon County Republican. [volume] (Audubon, Audubon Co., Iowa) 1885-1894, 1887-03-03
THE "BIG DlSTILLERY."
Judge Conrad, Of the Polk County Dis.
trict Court Grants a Permanent
Injunction.
re Decides that IL Can Mako No Liquor
90 be Sold I'm Other states for
Beverages.

decision In the case OF Pearson against
the big distillery, granting the permanent
injunction. The opinion is rs follows:
/, Il. Pearson ct al VS., The Internation-
al Distillery and John $. Kidd,
The plaintiffs claim that tho defendant
has been continuously since July 4. 1884.
and Is now engaged in manufacturing In.
toxicating liquors, to-wit. Alcohol, high
wines, cologne spirits and other spirituous
liquors, contrary to chapter Q. title IL Of
the code OF Iowa. and contrary to said
chapter rs amended by the act OF 1884,
and rs now in force; that defendant man
ufactured said Intoxicating liquors for
other than mechanical, medicinal. cult
nary and sacramental purposes; that said
defendant manufactured said Intoxicating
liquors for export and for sale without
the State for beverage and for general
purposes,
The defendant comedies in argument.
and the proof so shows, that he has dur
ing all said time manufactured large
quantities of alcohol and shipped the same
out OF the State and there sold the entire
product for general purposes, and other
than the four permitted purposes,
The defendant claims that, rs IL is law
full to manufacture for some purposes, and
having a permit, he can manufac-
ture without limit, and without
regard to the restrictions inn
posed by the laws OF this State, III only he
does not intend to sell any part OF his
product within this State.
This precise question has never been
before our supreme court.
Defendant claims that, so far rs II effects
this controversy, there has been no change
in the law since its enactment in 1856, and
that there has been both practical and ju.
dicial Interpretation Of the statute iavora-
bic to his claim
Tho practical Interpretation In the fnct
that for3O years distileries have been In
existence in Iowa, and no one has raised
this question. This would perhaps, II
the law has not been changed have much
force, IL 1t were not for the fact, ny we
know from current history, that distilling
has been heretofore carried on'in commu-
mites in sympathy with the business, and
opposed to the law.
The judicial construction claimed rests
mainly on Becker VS.. Betten, 39th
Iowa, 66S.
The only question In that case was
whether manufacturer could sell for
lawful purposes In this State without n
permit After reaching the conclusion
that the manufacturer could not sell
without u permit, the court added this
single sentence: Further than this, the
right Of export remains unlimited TO the
manufacturer and purchaser The ques-
ton to export was not In the case. The
expression was in nosensc necessary. BE.
sides no more can be claimed for IL than
that the manufacturer may export that
which he may lawfully produce.
Niles VS.. Fries 35th Iowa, Al, Is also re-
Iied upon. The only question there de-
cided was that possession OF intoxicating
liquors, without intent to sell or dispose
of them within this State was lawful.
Has there been no change in the law ?
Sec 1923 Is unchanged and reads. mo
person shall manufacture or SELL by him
self, his clerk, steward or agent, directly
or indirectly, any Intoxicating liquors,
except as hereinafter provided"
Section 1924 Is unchangee and
reads: land nothing contained In
this law shall prevent any
person from manufacturing in this State
liquors for the purpose OF being sold ac-
cordng to the provisions OF this chapter
20 be used for medical mechanical, Gull
nary or sacramento purposes.
Until the act Of 1884 manufacturers
were not required to have permit. That
act changed sec. 1926 by inserting the
word manufacturer" and now reads:
"Any citizen Of the State except hotel
keepers, keepers of saloons, eating
houses, grocery keepers and confectionefs
is hereby permitted within the county Of
his residence to manufacture, buy and
sell intoxicating liquors for mechanical,
medical, culinary and sacramental pur.
poses only; provided he shall first obtain
permission from the board of supervisors
Of the county in which such business Is
conducted as follows"
BY this change requiring the manufac
turer to have q permit, think IL was the
obvious intention of the Legislature to
impose on the manufacturer all the re-
strictions heretofore and therein imposed
on the buyer and seller, and TO limit the
manufacturer Of intoxicating liquors to
the wants OF the State for lawful pur-
py The word "on,vo in sec ,6oe hoe q
Main and obvions meaning and restricts
The manufac,urcr nrecisely ma Il restric,a
Tho hrvar and seller unless somo necoss;'
w. oy;s,s for Giving il difrorent M III :
~ az onnIied IN ,he acknowledgements I, a. ;
vula IF construction that tho pIoin mn a
ahu;ons nnan;n q mnst he given 70 81, tha
words ~ q statute nnless 1bev admit ~ )
d;gerent meantime and II hecomea nooas'
saru ~ Owe that difyarent mnan;na /,
nrder IN bring The section or nart - q
statnta In which tbe word or words 90
err in barnonv with some o,ber aec,;nn
~ ~, - tha carve o,atn,o a., r;,,;,. :.
70 he word oNIy The nlain ohy;oSSs anS
renal ,naaning "Reminiscences aro ohan'
,m,oiy nrob;h;ted from mannfoc, +,
inc otale on Iowa, any IntoNica.lhg Iq'
uors, except lor llecnan,cai, medlcihai,
culinary anu sacralhchtai purposes, ana
INC inanuiacture Ior any o.ner purpose,
Whether tne ploauc. - 70 DC soid IN iowa
or IN Iorc,gn otatcs, avioiatl9n OF law.
a careIul study OF tne whoie law
aiscoycis no woIu, paragraph y, SECTION
IN c9hnlct WIN sucn construcu0n' IN
oeea; any o,her construction sn wouid DC IN
connict Win sec. iooo' OF render the TWO
sections ;nbarmoniops Soc 1sao roado.
"At snch final hearing anv residan, ~
the comfy NAV anneap and show cause
WHY such hermit sbould moi he grantad
and the same shall he refused unless he
board shall be fully satisfied that ali the
requirements of the law have. in all re.